Ok, the left is the past, right is the future...infinity in both directions...the dashes represent earlier/later than events...#1 represents event X.

Now, event X is reached, having successfully traversed an infinite amount of events which lead to it...now, if we wanted to travel EQUAL distance into the future and stop at the specified point which represents this equal distance, what point would we stop at???

How is this a relevant question? What are you even seeking to demonstrate here?

Quote:If we had a starting point (S), and event X (1) is reached...and we traveled equal distance in the future and stop at a point where we reached this distance...what do we have?

And again, why does a symmetric distance into the future from event X matter in terms of the thing you're trying (failing) to demonstrate?

Quote:Conclusion: The only way any event X can successfully come to past on any timeline would be for there to have been a past boundary...a beginning point...but if the past is eternal, we would NEVER arrive at any event X, because for any event X to come to past, an infinite number of event X's would have preceded it, making it impossible to arrive at any points on the timeline.

Not if you have an infinite amount of time in order for those events to occur, which you demonstrably would need, with an infinite amount of events. To be clear, event X is not some separate event everyone is waiting for, it's one more part of the infinite set; if you had the resources to map out an infinite series of events individually, event X would fall somewhere on that timeline, and therefore sometime in the infinite length of time, it would elapse. You would have an infinite number of events preceding it, and that's hard for humans to wrap their brains around, but that doesn't mean that time stops working as an inexorably flowing forward thing. You just don't have enough time to sit there and watch it happen, but your impatience and inability to comprehend the bounds of your own hypothetical, aren't arguments against this.

Quote:So an absolute beginning of time is necessary...and only a timeless entity can be the source of time itself...God.

And you end with your usual unfounded assertion. How did you come to the conclusion that it's the christian god and not, say, Chronos the Time Mechanic? Or a mirror universe where time flows backwards, leading to it going from big crunch to big bang and back again in a- yes- infinite cycle?

Oh, you didn't come to that conclusion, I forgot. You just presupposed it.

(29-03-2015 11:14 PM)Alex K Wrote: Do you mean "come to pass" instead of "past"? Usually I wouldn't ask but for this topic here it is terminally confusing

Whatever the correct one is in this context.

(29-03-2015 11:14 PM)Alex K Wrote: Erm, I think your argument, if sound, applies to the impossibility of an eternal God as well. The words "source of time" are meaningless if you don't define exactly what you mean by that, and that only your God (whatever that is supposed to be) can act assuch a source is at best an unfounded assertion.

It would make God's existence impossible if he existed eternally in time. But since the argument is the First Cause was timeless before creation, this need not apply to the First Cause.

This is not special pleading, either. This is a NECESSARY condition that would apply to any conceivable first cause, not just God.

(29-03-2015 11:14 PM)Alex K Wrote: Do you mean "come to pass" instead of "past"? Usually I wouldn't ask but for this topic here it is terminally confusing

Whatever the correct one is in this context.

(29-03-2015 11:14 PM)Alex K Wrote: Erm, I think your argument, if sound, applies to the impossibility of an eternal God as well. The words "source of time" are meaningless if you don't define exactly what you mean by that, and that only your God (whatever that is supposed to be) can act assuch a source is at best an unfounded assertion.

It would make God's existence impossible if he existed eternally in time. But since the argument is the First Cause was timeless before creation, this need not apply to the First Cause.

This is not special pleading, either. This is a NECESSARY condition that would apply to any conceivable first cause, not just God.

Precisely, even if it were sound, this argument would tell us nothing about God and could refer to any abstract agent of causation. Alas, I do not think it is sound because causation is a temporal concept which is not even always applicable within our universe, and is totally meaningless in combination with the word "timeless". Or rather, unnecessary.

Quantum Physics: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Place a natural number on every single event which lead to event X. Just like you can place a natural number of every step which needs to be completed if you are following step by step instructions on how to bake a cake.

(30-03-2015 04:58 AM)Chas Wrote: How is that even a useful or meaningful question?

Kind of like if you are at the 40 yard line on a football field...and I asked you to travel equal distance forward that you traveled to reach the 40 yard line. Equal distance = 40 yards...so traveling equal distance (40 yards) will get you to the 80 yard line, wouldn't it?

Plain and simple stuff here, people.

(30-03-2015 04:58 AM)Chas Wrote: Points are neither finite nor infinite - the term does not apply to them.

Nonsense. If you were asked how many years have you lived since your day of birth, and you proceed to give a number...that is a finite number, which represents a "point" in time.

Now we are at the part in the game where the theme is "let's play stupid". Nonsense conclusions, questions, and assertions are being made...all because you people know the implications of a First Cause.

It is rather pathetic.

(30-03-2015 04:58 AM)Chas Wrote: That conclusion simply does not follow from the argument. And the expression is 'come to pass'.

You can use whatever term you want...that still doesn't undermine the implication

(30-03-2015 04:58 AM)Chas Wrote: It is also strikingly at odds with your sitting god example - he who can sit forever without time occurring but then decide to stand.

It sure as hell is conceivable.

(30-03-2015 04:58 AM)Chas Wrote: You still have not given any cogent explanation of 'outside of time'.

I already gave my answer to this...if you don't like my answer, then address it.

(30-03-2015 04:58 AM)Chas Wrote: Also, why do you insist that our time be unique? More precisely, why our time line has to be the only one? Ours began at the big bang, there may have been/may be/may come other time lines.

For at least two reasons, first, if you want to postulate "other time lines", then present evidence/arguments for it...otherwise, you have no reason to believe it and you are just looking for a way out of the God Hypothesis, which is quite apparent. Second, postulating other timelines is irrelevant, because events in time are irrelevant to any particular view of time...so it doesn't matter...even if you postulate other timelines or whatever, the problem of infinity would still be there.

It isn't going anyway, no matter how hard you try.

(30-03-2015 04:58 AM)Chas Wrote: And your conclusion that only your god is the answer is hilariously simplistic and egotistical.

(30-03-2015 10:51 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote: It would make God's existence impossible if he existed eternally in time. But since the argument is the First Cause was timeless before creation, this need not apply to the First Cause.

It is worth noting, rather humorously, that any action god takes within his timeless whatever can be measured in demarcations of, yes, you guessed it, time. Something being timeless and yet performing any action, thought, or even just existing, is impossible, as the moment a thing exists, that existence can be measured by time.

Quote:This is not special pleading, either. This is a NECESSARY condition that would apply to any conceivable first cause, not just God.

(30-03-2015 11:09 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote: Kind of like if you are at the 40 yard line on a football field...and I asked you to travel equal distance forward that you traveled to reach the 40 yard line. Equal distance = 40 yards...so traveling equal distance (40 yards) will get you to the 80 yard line, wouldn't it?

So it's not just mathematics -- you don't know anything about football either. There is no 80 yard line.

Oh my gosh, C of the W has time to post in this thread too??? I didn't think he'd have any time left after spending so much time in that other thread.

Well, it is kind of amusing to see someone who knows zero about physics or math arguing about space and time.

Here's a conundrum: If Mr. Call posts an infinitely long post in one thread, then tries to find the middle point in that thread, then posts a post twice as long in this thread, how long before the beginning of time would he have had to begin in order to reach his present cumulative post length before the rest of us die of boredom from reading the same three arguments over and over?

Note: His three arguments are:
1. "I'm right and you're wrong."
2. "The Bible says so." And
3. "I don't care about science. Science is just voodoo."